1 ‘Against the World’ Michael Field, Female Marriage and the Aura of Amateurism This article considers the case of Katherine Bradley and Edith Cooper, an aunt and niece who lived and wrote together as ‘Michael Field’ in the fin-de-siècle Aesthetic movement. Bradley’s bold statement that she and Cooper were ‘closer married’ than the Brownings forms the basis for a discussion of their partnership in terms of a ‘female marriage’, a union that is reflected, as I will argue, in the pages of their writings. However, Michael Field’s exclusively collaborative output, though extensive, was no guarantee for success. On the contrary, their case illustrates the notion, valid for most products of co-authorship, that the jointly written work is always surrounded by an aura of amateurism. Since collaboration defied the ingrained notion of the author as the solitary producer of his or her work, critics and readers have time and again attempted to ‘parse’ the collaboration by dissecting the co-authored work into its constituent halves, a treatment that the Fields too failed to escape. In André Gide’s 1925 novel Les faux-monnayeurs (The Counterfeiters ), Olivier, in discussion with his friend Armand, boldly claims that ‘[a]ucun chef d’oeuvre n’est le résultat d’une collaboration’ 1. Olivier’s conviction that a product of collaboration between authors can never result in a masterpiece reflects the widespread view of co- authorship as a marginal practice, often associated with amateurism. This wary attitude towards collaboration is an immediate by-product of what Jack Stillinger, in his influential 1991 volume on multiple authorship, has termed the ‘myth of solitary genius’. This article will discuss one case of co-authorship that illustrates the struggle for recognition in a literary field where the hegemony of the singular Author was all but absolute. Katherine Bradley (1846-1914) and Edith Cooper (1862-1913), an aunt and niece (both Aestheticists), together formed the writing duo that would become known under the purposely chosen masculine pseudonym of ‘Michael Field’. This article discusses the women’s private and professional ‘marriage’, as well as the expression of it on the page. I investigate how ‘the Fields’ (as their friends dubbed them) interacted with the concept of fame and reputation in turn-of-the-century England. How did their 1 Gide, Les faux-monnayeurs, 356. 2 collaborative relationship influence the reception of their work? And was that the only factor at play in guiding readers’ and critics’ responses? Contrary to other fin-de-siècle authors that only occasionally engaged in a joint literary venture with another author (take for example H. Rider Haggard’s collaboration with Andrew Lang on their novel The World’s Desire (1889)), Bradley and Cooper’s co- authored fiction was the primary focus of their productivity, and their only attempt at a claim to fame. Katherine Bradley did publish one collection of poetry (1875’s The New Minnesinger ) on her own, but once she and her niece had struck up their partnership, publication was always shared. Edith too, had written alone as a young adult. Her early poems were collected by Katherine in a posthumous edition, entitled Dedicated (1914). Remarkably, she chose to publish these poems equally under their shared pseudonym, presenting it as an ‘Early Work of Michael Field’. Katherine thus posthumously inscribes herself as collaborator in a work that was originally Edith’s alone. Strikingly, Katherine’s first, solitary publication already shows her taste for the ‘game of literary androgyny’ 2. She issued the volume under the male pseudonym of ‘Arran Leigh’ (a clear echo of Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s Aurora Leigh , with its female poet protagonist). When Edith joined her in their communal literary effort, she assumed the role of pseudonymous wife: the first published fruit of their collaboration, Bellerophôn , was published in 1881 under the names ‘Arran and Isla Leigh’. Finally, with the publication of Callirrhoë and Fair Rosamund in 1884, the women decided to merge their separate identities, and two became one in the persona of Michael Field. Michael Field’s ‘Female Marriage’ The seeds of affection between the aunt and niece were sown early on, when Katherine lived with the Coopers to help her sister Lissie – an invalid after the birth of her second daughter Amy – with the household and the care for the children. When Edith grew up, she and Katherine attended University College Bristol together, and eventually – after many years of living with Edith’s widower father, James Cooper – even shared a house of their own. Their relationship played out against the ambiguous backdrop of fin-de-siècle Victorian England. On the one hand, their love for each other could be interpreted as an example of Victorian ‘romantic friendship’, a concept which allowed for superfluous 2 Donaghue, We Are Michael Field, 22. 3 affection between women without invoking any sexual implications 3. Moreover, family ties at the time sanctioned profuse expressions of attachment in letters and diaries – some of which might nowadays be considered inappropriate. This explains, as Emma Donaghue states in We Are Michael Field , why ‘none of their family seem to have looked askance at Katherine and Edith’s growing passion, woven as it was into the family web of “darlings” and “dearests”’ 4. Yet, the two women were also entering the fin-de-siècle era, when new theories and legislation would work together to burst the bubble of innocence, and the concept of ‘romantic friendship’ would undergo severe scrutiny for its possibly sexual nature. Suspicion towards same-sex unions arose when ‘medical writers and social thinkers in the 1880s began to equate inversion with the infantile, the primitive, and the undoing of a civilization premised on monogamous, heterosexual marriage’ 5. Of paramount influence in heightening anxiety about homosexuality (and among homosexuals) was the so-called ‘Labouchere Amendment’ 6, under which Oscar Wilde was famously convicted to two years’ hard labour. Wilde, incidentally, was a dear acquaintance of the Fields, who shared his Aesthetic doctrine and grieved deeply at his death in 1900. The increasing wariness and homophobia in the final decades of the nineteenth century meant that in some milieus homosexuality became equivalent to primitivism – a return to a pre-cultural state where ‘anything goes’. Still, same-sex couples abounded in late-Victorian times. The Fields themselves were very close friends with a couple of artists and fellow aesthetes, Charles Ricketts and Charles Shannon, whom they affectionately called ‘The Painters’, ‘The Brothers’ or even ‘The Apple and the Pear’ 7. Like Bradley and Cooper, these two men shared their home, lives and work, but made sure to hide the extent of their intimacy from the public. Unlike the more explicit Wilde or John Addington Symonds, they feared society’s 3 According to Carolyn Oulton, the common view saw romantic friendship as a phenomenon that took place mainly in youth (also between men, for example among school friends), but should ultimately give way to something with a broader social base (most often marriage, for example to the brother or sister of the object of friendship) ( Romantic Friendship in Victorian Literature, 10). In literature, examples of romantic friendship abound (e.g. in Jane Austen’s pairs of sisters and friends). See also Lilian Faderman’s Surpassing the Love of Men: Romantic Friendship and Love Between Women from the Renaissance to the Present (1981). 4 Donaghue, We Are Michael Field, 28. 5 Marcus, Between Women, 194. 6Officially called Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885, the Labouchere Amendment made it possible to prosecute upon charges of ‘gross indecency’ – most commonly used to put male homosexuals on trial when actual sodomy (which was punishable by death) could not be proven. 7 As Donaghue points out, ‘[t]hese silly nicknames had a serious point; the four of them [the Fields and the Painters] were devising a vocabulary to celebrate the non-marital but complementary roles they all played. Instead of husband and wife, they could be apple and pear’ ( We Are Michael Field, 87). 4 increasing suspicion of homosexuality. Another prominent example was Frances Power Cobbe, who lived together with her lover, the sculptor Mary Lloyd, for decades. In her correspondence with friends Cobbe explicitly referred to Lloyd in marital terms, calling her both her ‘husband’ and her ‘old woman’ or ‘wife’ 8. Remarkably, in this instance, a woman could take on either or both gender roles within the so-called ‘female marriage’. The Fields too, thought of their union in terms of heterosexual marriage, though they were careful not to refer to each other publicly as husband and/or wife. Allusions to their ‘marriage’ and the sexual nature of their relationship were mainly confined to the pages of their letters (in which they exchanged terms of endearment such as ‘Sweet Wife’ and ‘my own husband’ 9) and their joint journal, Works and Days (published posthumously in 1933). Yet, their ‘female marriage’ differs significantly from traditional marriage, precisely because it was a voluntary, fictitious construction, rather than a legal institution. Their union was socially accepted by friends and family, and therefore enforced, but it did not put a binding constraint on the women. To quote Sharon Marcus, ‘[t]heir legal status as unmarried women allowed them to have a socially recognized spouse and to keep the economic autonomy that legally married wives relinquished under the doctrine of coverture’ 10 . Katherine was aware of the constraint that traditional marriage sometimes put on women. She observed: ‘The wife has to mould her whole nature to her husband’s’ 11 . In a female marriage (ideally) this would not be the case. In contemporary discussions about marital reform, some progressive thinkers even believed that same-sex unions presented a model that traditional heterosexual marriage could benefit from, characterized as they were by ‘dissolubility, relative egalitarianism, and greater freedom for both spouses’ 12 .